|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Jan 24, 2022 21:27:37 GMT -5
Imo this rule is being proposed to favor the way the process was already done instead of doing what best for the league when presenting a new rule. Feels like whatever it takes right now to get the Giants and Texans switched is the mindset instead of proposing a rule that will benefit the league and it's GM's in the short and long run of the league. I seem to be the main one with the viewpoint. Which is fine don't mind being on an island myself on this. I've gave my plea on this rule in a previous thread ( legacynfl.boards.net/thread/11680/2022-organization-switching ) not going to get into it again here. Just want to share my thoughts on this thread so my previous engagement on the issue isn't buried in a new thread proposals. Not that I'm against GM's switching teams, however, I agree with Ricky's viewpoint here.
Basically, the cart was already placed before the horse. Something unprecedented was done, and now it seems we're looking for a way to justify it by placing it to the league for a vote. That way we can wash our hands, without really considering what's in the best interest of the league. There's no doubt the question of forming a rule should've been placed before this switch was even presented.
One of the issues, as I see it, is that even though Laura may have explained her lack of activity over the past couple of years, there's no reason to believe her activity will increase. Especially since we're still in the midst of this pandemic. This isn't a mark on Laura. Life happens. To be honest, in the best interest of the league and her own well-being, she should have resigned as a GM when she knew she wouldn't have the time to commit. Then, if a team opened later and she had the time to commit, she could have asked to placed on the waiting list.
As it stands, I'm sure the league is all for an experienced and tenured GM such as Anthony taking over a depleted team. Finding a replacement GM for the Giants would be much easier than finding a replacement for the Texans. By attempting to place a mere GM and team switch to vote in the name of transparency isn't solely demonstrative of what's in the best interest of the league. Especially where the damage to the team that has basically been ignored by its GM is done.
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Jan 24, 2022 21:33:21 GMT -5
Only reason we are putting a rule in place on something that is so simple is because people wanted transparency. If two teams want to flip teams, not even sure we need a rule in place in the first…as many have stated.
Now that a rule is developed this still isn’t good enough From two AFC South Teams …ironic lol Do I really scare people that much lol (I do appreciate it though)
I think we’re getting to the point, where people are clearly seeing what is really behind all these “concerns” .
There has never been a rule put in place prior to an idea being brought up by GMs…rules/proposals dont just magically appear. They come from GMs talking, and discussing new ideas. But we all know that.
But here is the beauty of it all…let’s all vote and see where we end up.
|
|
|
Post by Jaguars GM (Shane) on Jan 24, 2022 22:42:50 GMT -5
I’ve been following this discussion. I am completely against the switching ownership of Teams for whatever reason. I see the arguments on both sides, tomorrow morning when I get some time I’ll put up my reasons. At the heart of the issue, abandoning your team for another is a calculated decision within this league. I might understand resigning GM responsibilities for a team you’ve spent years building to grab an open GM position - though even that is sketchy. Just like a trade is judged by its value, so does a GM move that can be seen by some as a purposeful move to a weaker division in order to get out of the rat race you’re in.
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Jan 24, 2022 23:13:48 GMT -5
Well now that we know where the AFC South stands ….lol
Let’s vote !!
|
|
|
Post by Washington GM (Blaine) on Jan 24, 2022 23:24:32 GMT -5
Hello all, I feel like this has gone a little off the rails…..
So I just wanted to help us remember this is just regarding the rule proposal.
Once we decide if we should put the rule in place then we can put the swap up for vote.
For my two cents….. I don’t see any issue with this rule, and honestly it’s very difficult for me to even find a credible argument as to why a gm couldn’t switch teams. Now, if we said the roster could go with the gm or the gm would get a bunch of comp picks that would be different but to just say everything stays the same and two gms are swapping teams, no issue with that. I do think such a swap should be put for a league vote and majority rules and it’s a done deal.
I just wanted to comment on the rule proposal Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Jan 24, 2022 23:51:30 GMT -5
With Shane bringing up a valid argument that Switching of Organizations should not be allowed at all, I think we should add that to the poll.
Poll: Should we allow Trading of Organizations
1. No, no Trading of Organizations should happen under any circumstance
2. Yes, trading of Organizations should happen…and follow the proposal Frank posted at the start of this thread
3. Yes, trading should happen and follow this proposal: Does someone have another?
Lots of great arguments made on all sides. Thanks to everyone for sharing their great ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Jan 25, 2022 0:16:50 GMT -5
Anthony has gone ahead and proposed a rule in which team switching would be made available to league GM's. I think this is a good start, what does everyone think, and what can we tweak. Now I know that not ever rule is perfect at first, especially when were coming out with a fresh rule that I have never seen, and potential changes may need to be made because of flaws.
Thoughts??? I'll just add this. I see no need to place the switch to the league for a vote for transparency purposes. As long as the intent is posted and approved by the respective GM's, it should be good enough.
|
|
|
Post by Broncos GM (Kevin) on Jan 25, 2022 10:14:18 GMT -5
Don't see an issue to be honest, we welcome new members in to take over orphan teams all the time and they often get the choice. What the difference between Laura taking over the Giants or a newbie taking over the giants. What has the newbie done to deserve getting that team.
Should all orphan teams first be offered first to existing active GM's?
|
|
|
Post by Titans GM (Ricky) on Jan 25, 2022 10:54:32 GMT -5
Don't see an issue to be honest, we welcome new members in to take over orphan teams all the time and they often get the choice. What the difference between Laura taking over the Giants or a newbie taking over the giants. What has the newbie done to deserve getting that team. Should all orphan teams first be offered first to existing active GM's? Imo the difference is that a newbie hasn't had multiple years of invalid lineups with a mismanaged roster. It's not so much what the newbie has done to deserve it's what they haven't done in terms of messing up the competitive balance of the league by not following basic rules that have been outlined and supposedly to be punished for years. We won't and haven't let that be ok for some GM's but others we will in the scenario. But I think that parts generally been covered by the bases of if you like Laura you'll look past it. Which is ridiculous to me when talking about a set of rules that have been outlined for a whole league to follow but apparently some GM dont have to worry about that.
|
|
|
Post by Titans GM (Ricky) on Jan 25, 2022 11:04:05 GMT -5
I see this as we had multiple options at the beginning. At the very start when Laura knew she wasn't going to be able to be active she should have resigned like it's been mentioned or relieved of her duties. We've had GM's in here like Dan and Joe who have took off a year because it didn't work with their schedule in life then came back. And that type of scenario I can completely understand putting a GM at the top of the waiting list because they have been with us and they get the first open table available when they choose to come back. It's been done here before.
Since Laura chose not to do that fine then she had the responsibility of maintaining a roster. For years that did not happen with multiple threats of fines and violations. Still we ended up in the same spot. Maybe if her roster would have been fined and handled at the beginning I wouldn't have the argument over invalid roster maintenance for multiple years. But here we are.
If all that would have been handled I would have no problem with her taking over a different team at that point. Or if she would have took a year off or two then came back I would have no problem with her getting the first available team either. But as I see it none of that happened and now we're accommodating her how she needs because people like her. To me it feels like a whole lot of screw the rules And what they've been standing for. What it really comes down to is how much do we get along with you and do we want you here with us.
I will add that the idea of her showing up for the last couple weeks to get credit for being "active" compared to the months and months she had no roster maintenance at all shows you all the favoritism you need to know in the scenario of how it's being viewed.
|
|
|
Post by Jaguars GM (Shane) on Jan 25, 2022 14:18:05 GMT -5
Good points by all. I’ve changed my mind after thinking through this issue. Many of us have been in this league so long that a little change is not a bad thing. The AFC could certainly use some inspired competition, and I expect it will make us all better GMs. I’ll vote to support the switch.
That being said, I’m not as concerned with rewarding GM’s than I am with allowing GM’s who screw up their franchises being able to move to a new team. But those are issues and details we can work out once the rule is adopted, if it is.
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Jan 26, 2022 12:04:41 GMT -5
Sorry guys...I just can't buy into this. This is BS!
Don't get me wrong, I believe the majority of the league is all for a rule that would allow GM's to switch teams, including myself.
What doesn't sit well with me is the way this process took place. Period. On top of that, there are those in the NFC who believe and have adopted the mindset that the AFC Conference is the weaker conference and somehow needs there help. Further, for Anthony to suggest the AFC's intent behind the objection is because he's feared for whatever reason is a down right sickening thought. Really, quite offensive.
I kept trying to put my finger on what was taking place because it kept nagging at me. Then, I slightly recalled a conversation taking place where the idea of potentially switching teams took place. Here's the conversation in relevant part that took place back on November, 30, 2021...
Nov. 30, 2021...
Washington G.B.: @anthony (Giants) Maybe if Philly gets a new owner then they will rebuild haha one less top team in our division
Anthony (Giants): Or I could take my team to the AFC lol
Washington G.B.: Honestly the AFC needs some stronger competition
Anthony (Giants): Do we shuffle up the conferences ?
Washington G.B.: Sounds like something we could propose in the offseason @anthony (Giants)
Anthony (Giants): That would balance (potentially cause it would be a draw) the conferences
Frank (Rams GM): We will propose it up for league consideration
Frank (Rams GM): 10 year anniversary I was thinking about doing something special.
Anthony (Giants): I?m definitely down to switching up divisions and conferences potentially
Anthony (Giants): Keep things fresh, new team
___________
And there you have it! The way I see it, the lack of proposing the proposition, the going behind closed doors to seek out a switch, the seeking of an approval, the tentative pre-approval, and then seeking to cover it up by proposing a proposition that would provide transparency is BS.
Nobody fears the alleged "powers" of the NFC...and the AFC Conference sure DOES NOT need your assistance. In fact, the teams in the AFC are far more balanced with competition than the NFC's concentrated powers.
This isn't about being tired and a change of scenery, it's a cover-up. So, propose the rule, as I believe it should be allowed. But for this and many other reasons, surely not for the teams involved.
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Jan 26, 2022 12:18:39 GMT -5
I appreciate you for correctly recalling a public conversation about this matter.
Back from Nov. 30 2021, I wanted a change of scenery. Did not matter where, but wanted a team I could build from the ground up. Wanted a change.
I did not hide my idea of wanting a change. I made it known publicly that I wanted a change as you correctly posted above. Not trying to slip a fast one by anyone. I stated "I want a change" on GroupMe.
Now, If we do not want switching of organizations, I am totally fine with that decision. 100% am fine if as league we do not want this. If we want to allow it, then we need to decide how we want to go about it. (Also I am fine with the process that the league decides too). I just want to do what the league feel is just. The proposal I created...was After I made contact with laura and Frank...no one has ever denied that.
Frank created the first Thread on this matter after the announcement was first made, and since then people added the points. Blaine created the vast majority of the rule, and I added to it after I saw the ideas in the Forum.
I do apologize for Reaching out to Frank and to Laura, to get the process going. I stated that at the start of the conversation and apologized on several occasions.
I take full responsibility for messaging our Commish and mentioning to him I was looking for a change. But we did not have a process in place to deal with this matter. So reaching out to the Commish through PM I thought was fair. Not a Cover-Up.
I take full responsibility for reaching out to Laura to see if she was interested. Full responsibility for that.
I did not think reaching out to the Commish, was wrong, and still do not think it was. But that has caused some concern, so I will take full responsibility for that.
But there was No Cover Up.
The Thread opened, after people got into contact with Frank. I believe the Thread was opened to have a discussion and hear people's ideas. It was to try and please the concerns that a very few had. Which is great.
There are many that don't even think a rule is needed. This is what we need to find out.
But absolutely from Nov. 30 2021 and even previously...I was looking to switch teams. I appreciate you recalling the specific date. I don't think me wanting a change of scenery, was a bad thing for me to want after 10 years. But again, if we do not want switching...if the the Commish does not want it, or the league does not want this as a rule...then we don't need to allow it.
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jan 26, 2022 12:34:44 GMT -5
Wait.... a conversation on Groupme is behind closed doors???
|
|
|
Post by Washington GM (Blaine) on Jan 26, 2022 12:36:04 GMT -5
I’m tired of this thread to be honest, people have strayed so far away from the original situation and proposal. We just need a solution here
|
|